Ellipsis in Persian: Verb Phrase Ellipsis or Argument Ellipsis? - - PDF document

Ellipsis in Persian: Verb Phrase Ellipsis or Argument Ellipsis?

Vahideh Rasekhi and Nazila Shafiei∗ Stony Brook University 1. Introduction (1) Ali Ali ketˆ ab book na-xarid,

NEG-bought,

vali but Maryam Maryam [ketˆ ab] book xarid. bought (lit.) ’Ali didn’t buy books, but Maryam bought.’ Compare (1) to the Hebrew example in (2). (2)

• a. Q: Ha’im

Q Tamar Tamar kanta buy.PAST.3SG kafe? coffee ‘Did Tamar buy coffee?’

• b. A: Ken,

yes, hi she kanta. buy.PAST.3SG ‘Yes, she bought (coffee).’ (Goldberg 2005:36) (3)

• a. Verb-stranding VPE (VVPE)

TP DP Maryam T′ vP <DP> Maryam v′ VP DP ketˆ ab ‘book’ V <xarid> v <xarid> T xarid ’bought’

• b. Argument Ellipsis (AE)

TP DP Maryam T′ vP <DP> Maryam v′ VP DP ketˆ ab ‘book’ V <xarid> v <xarid> T

2. In this talk:

• What are the characteristics of VVPE?
• What are the characteristics of AE?
• We will show that we have VVPE in Persian.
• We propose that the verb survives ellipsis by moving to a FocP, above vP, in the TP level; and the E

feature (Merchant, 2001) on F licenses the elision of its complement, vP.

∗vahideh.rasekhi@stonybrook.edu ; nazila.shafiei@stonybrook.edu

3. Verb-stranding VP Ellipsis (Toosarvandani, 2009, 2015)

• Following Complex Predicate (CPr) structure proposed by Folli, Harley and Karimi (2005), Toosar-

vandani proposes the structure in (4c) for the example in (4b).

• Verb starts off at v, followed by the deletion of its complement, i.e. Non-Verbal element (NV) and

internal arguments; hence, v-stranding VPE. (4) (Toosarvandani 2009, ex.33) a. Nilufar Nilufar be to mehmuni party dˆ aneshju student [CPr [CPr davat invitation ne-mi-kone].

NEG-SUBJ-do.3SG]

‘Nilufar doesn’t invite students to the party.’ b. vali but man I [be mehmuni dˆ aneshju davat] [to party student invitation] mi-kon-am.

SUBJ-do-1SG

‘But, I do (invite students to the party). c.

vP <DP> v′ NP PP be mehmuni ‘to the party’ N′ DP dˆ aneshju ‘student’ N davat ‘invitation’ v mikonam ‘do’

(Toosarvandani 2009, ex.73) 3.1 Predictions The Non-Verbal (NV) element in CPrs and the internal arguments are always elided, as illustrated in (4c), unless the internal argument is extracted out of the ellipsis site. 3.2 Issues

• A. NV element can remain overt, as in (5):

(5) a. Nilufar Nilufar be to mehmuni party dˆ aneshju student [CPr [CPr davat invitation ne-mi-kone].

NEG-SUBJ-do.3SG]

‘Nilufar doesn’t invite students to the party.’ b. vali but man I [be mehmuni dˆ aneshju] [to party student] [NV [NV davat] invitation] mi-kon-am.

SUBJ-do-1SG

‘But, I do [invite students to the party].’

• B. Typological Issue:

VVPE is assumed to exist in languages with V to T movement (Goldberg, 2005). Allowing v to strand creates a typological problem since in all languages V moves to v.

• C. Issues with simple predicates:

Applying his analysis to simple predicates would anticipate the elision of VP rather than vP. However, in VPE, vP is elided, not VP, as in (7) for the sentence with a simple predicate in (6). (6) a. Ali Ali be to mehmuni party dˆ aneshju student ne-mi-yˆ ar-e.

NEG-SUBJ-take-PRESENT.3SG

‘Ali doesn’t bring students to the party.’ 2

b. Man I [be mehmuni dˆ aneshju] [to party student] mi-yˆ ar-am.

SUBJ-take-PRESENT.3SG

‘I bring (students to the party).’ (7)

vP <DP> v′ VP PP be mehmuni ‘to the party’ V′ DP dˆ aneshju ‘student’ <V> v miyaram ‘take’

4. Verb-stranding VPE (Shafiei, 2015, 2016)

• Adapting Megerdoomian’s (2001, 2012) CPr structure, Shafiei (2015, 2016) proposes another struc-

ture for CPrs, where the NV and Light Verb (LV) form a single head, as she called Complex Verb (CV). (8) a. Ali Ali doost-esh friend-GEN.sSG ro

ACC

[CPr [CPr davat invitation ne-mi-kone].

NEG-SUBJ-do.3SG]

‘Ali doesn’t invite his friend.’ b. vali but Sahar Sahar [doost-esh ro] [friend-GEN.sSG ACC] [CPr [CPr davat invitation mi-kone].

SUBJ-do.3SG]

‘But, Sahar invites [her friend].’ (9)

CP TP DP Sahar T′ T [past] vP <DP> Sahar vP DP doostesh-ro “self’s friend“ v′ CVP <DP> doostesh-ro “self’s friend“ <CV> <v> CV v C CV N davat “invitation” LV mikone “does” C

3

• She proposes that the LV moves higher than v, presumably to C, taking or leaving the NV behind.
• The LV can optionally pied-pipe or strand the NV. This is how the NV can or cannot survive deletion.

4.1 Predictions

• A. Verb raises out of vP and moves to C.
• B. NV element can remain overt.
• C. Internal arguments must be elided.

4.2 Issues

• A. Can’t account for cases in which one argument survives the ellipsis.
• B. The motivation for V to C movement is unclear.

5. Argument Ellipsis (Rasekhi, 2014, 2015) (10) a. Az from in-ke this-that Ali Ali bˆ a with deghat care ketˆ ab-ro book-ACC be to doxtar-esh daughter-GEN.3SG dˆ ad give.3SG.PAST tajjob surprise na-kard-am.

NEG-do.PAST-1SG

‘The fact that Ali carefully gave the book to his daughter didn’t surprise me.’ b. Vali but az from in-ke this-that bˆ a with deghat care gooshi-ro phone-ACC [be doxtar-esh] [to daughter-GEN.3SG] na-dˆ ad

NEG-give.3SG.PAST

tajjob surprise kard-am. do.PAST-1SG ‘But, the fact that he didn’t give the phone (to his daughter) carefully surprised me.’ (Rasekhi 2014, ex.33)

• According to Rasekhi, the Verb-stranding VPE cant account for (10) since the indirect object is

elided while the direct object is overt. (11) a. Az from in-ke this-that Ali Ali bˆ a with deghat care ketˆ ab-ro book-ACC be to doxtar-esh daughter-GEN.3SG dˆ ad give.3SG.PAST tajjob surprise na-kard-am.

NEG-do.PAST-1SG

‘The fact that Ali carefully gave the book to his daughter didn’t surprise me.’ b. vali but az from in-ke this-that bˆ a with deghat care [ketˆ ab-ro] [book-ACC] be to pesar-esh son-GEN.3SG na-dˆ ad

NEG-give.3SG.PAST

tajjob surprise kard-am. do.PAST-1SG ‘But, the fact that he didn’t give (the book) to his son carefully surprised me.’

• Indirect object in (10b) and direct object in (11b) can elide independently.

4

(12)

• a. Elided DO

vP DP Ali v′ VP DP gooshi-ro ‘the phone’ V′ PP be doxtar-esh ‘to his daughter’ V <dˆ ad> v dˆ ad ‘gave’

• b. Elided IO

vP DP Ali v′ VP DP gooshi-ro ‘the phone’ V′ PP be doxtar-esh ‘to his daughter’ V <dˆ ad> v dˆ ad ‘gave’

5.1 Predictions

• A. All arguments can be independently elided.
• B. We can have DP, PP, AP ellipsis.

5.2 Issues

• A. It is not economical when more than one argument is elided.
• B. Her study doesn’t say anything about complex predicates.

6. The Puzzle

• Do we have Argument Ellipsis (AE) or Verb stranding VPE (VVPE) in Persian?
• Diagnostics for VVPE versus AE (Goldberg 2005, Toosarvandani 2009, Gribanova, 2013, Bailyn

2014) – V to T movement – Adverb Interpretation – Verbal Identity – Extraction 6.1 V to T movement

• Distinguishing VVPE from AE is difficult. Since the verb remains overt, both of these analyses

seem compatible with the data.

• A Hebrew sentence in (2), repeated here in (13), can be accounted for by either VVPE or AE

approaches. (13)

• a. Q: Ha’im

Q Tamar Tamar kanta buy.PAST.3SG kafe? coffee ‘Did Tamar buy coffee?’ 5

• b. A: Ken,

yes, hi she kanta. buy.PAST.3SG ‘Yes, she bought (coffee).’ (Goldberg 2005:36)

• VVPE occurs in languages (e.g. Hebrew, Irish, Swahili) with V to T movement (Goldberg, 2005).
• In Russian, verb moves to AspP and is stranded there (Gribanova 2013).
• In Persian, verb is stranded in v (Toosarvandani 2009), or C (Shafiei, 2015, 2016).
• Rasekhi (2014, 2015) proposes AE for Persian due to lack of V to T movement.

6.2 Verbal Identity

• In Hebrew: the main verbs must be identical in root and derivational morphology (Goldberg 2005:160).

(14)

• a. Q: (Ha’im)

Q Miryam Miryam hevi’a bring.PAST.3FSG et

ACC

Dvora Dvora la-xanut? to-the.store ‘Did Miryam bring Dvora to the store?’

• b. A: Ken,

yes, hi she hevi’a. bring.PAST.FSG ‘Yes, she brought (Dvora to the store).’

• c. A: *Ken,

yes, hi she lakxaa. take.PAST.FSG (Intended) ‘Yes, she took (Dvora to the store).’

• In Persian complex predicates: it is possible to have different light verbs only if the meaning of the

verb does not change (15). Otherwise, the result will be an ungrammatical sentence; for instance, in (16), the argument structure of the verb is different (Toosarvandani, 2009). (15)

• a. Q: Piran-o

shirt-ACC [CPr [CPr

• tu

iron kardi]? do.PAST.2SG] ‘Did you iron the shirt?’

• b. A: ˆ

Are, yes, diruz yesterday [piran-o otu] [shirt-ACC iron] [LV [LV zadam]. hit.PAST.2SG] ‘Yes, I did yesterday.’ (Toosarvandani 2009:89 (16)

• a. Q: Lebˆ

as-ˆ a clothes-PL [CPr [CPr xoshk dry shod-an]? become.PAST.2PL] ‘Have the clothes dried yet?’

• b. A: *Na,

no, vali but Rostam rostam alˆ an now raft went.3SG [lebˆ as-ˆ a ro xoshk] [clothes-PL ACC dry] [LV [LV bo-kon-e].

SUBJ-do-3SG]

(Intended) ‘No, but Rostam just went to dry.’ 6

However, in Persian, verbs have to be either identical, or semantically contrastive, as in (17). (17) a. Bˆ a with deghat care livˆ an-ˆ a glass-PL ro

ACC

be to Ali Ali dˆ ad-am give.PAST-1SG ‘I carefully gave the glasses to Ali.’ b. az from in-ke this-that bˆ a with deghat care [livˆ an-ˆ a ro] [glass-PL ACC] na-gereft

NEG-take.PAST.3SG

tajjob surprise kard-am. did-1SG ’The fact that he didn’t take (the glasses) carefully surprised me.’ (Rasekhi 2015, ex.33) 6.3 Extraction

• In VPE, extraction is possible (18).

(18) Jason will eat shrimp, but squid, I know he won’t [eat <squid>]. (Schuyler, 2002)

• This means that, it is possible to extract the arguments before deleting the VP.

(19) Rostam Rostam

PIRAN-O

shirt-ACC

• tu

iron na-zade

NEG-hit.3SG

vali but

SHALV ˆ AR-O

pants-ACC midunam know.1SG ke that [<shalvˆ ar-o> otu] [pants-ACC iron] zade. hit.3SG ‘Rostam didn’t iron the shirt, but the pants, I know he did.’ (Toosarvandani 2009:21)

• Extraction from the ellipsis site to a position in the matrix clause, where it receives a contrastive

focus interpretation is possible in Persian. 6.4 Adverb Interpretation

• In VPE, as in (20) the adverb is obligatorily interpreted.

(20) John read the book carefully but Mary didn’t.

• i. *didn’t read the book.
• ii. didn’t read the book carefully.
• Persian does not show this property, (21).

(21) Maryam Maryam ketˆ ab book ro ACC bˆ a with deghat care xund, read, vali but Ali Ali na-xund. NEG-read

• i. Ali didn’t read the book.
• ii. *Ali didn’t read the book carefully.

7. Summary

• There is no V to T movement. This is a challenge for VVPE analysis in Persian.
• Verbs have to be either identical or semantically contrastive, which is another challenge for VVPE

analysis.

• Extraction of objects out of the VP is possible. This test supports the VVPE approach.
• There is no obligatory interpretation of adverbs. This test posits a challenge for VVPE analysis.

7

8. Proposal

• We propose that the VVPE strategy can account for all types of structures, in which one or more

arguments are elided.

• Following Kahnemuyipour (2001), we propose that there is a FocP above vP in the TP level. The

evidence for the existecne of this FocP comes from wh-phrases (22), verbal identity (23) and con- trastiveness (24) for the extracted objects. (22) a. Ali Ali ye

• ne

saat hour pish ago raft go.PAST.3SG xune. home ‘Ali went home an hour ago.’ b. Ali Ali ye

• ne

saat hour pish ago kojˆ a where raft? go.PAST.3SG ’Where did Ali go an hour ago?’ (Kahnemuyipour 2001, ex.7) (23) a. Bˆ a with deghat care livˆ an-ˆ a glass-PL ro

ACC

be to Ali Ali dˆ ad-am. give.PAST-1SG ‘I carefully gave the glasses to Ali.’ b. az from in-ke this-that bˆ a with deghat care [livˆ an-ˆ a ro] [glass-PL ACC] na-gereft

NEG-take.PAST.3SG

tajjob surprise kard-am. did-1SG ’The fact that he didn’t take (the glasses) carefully surprised me.’ (Rasekhi 2015, ex.33) (24) Rostam Rostam

PIRAN-O

shirt-ACC

• tu

iron na-zade

NEG-hit.3SG

vali but

SHALV ˆ AR-O

pants-ACC midunam know.1SG ke that [<shalvˆ ar-o> otu] [pants-ACC iron] zade. hit.3SG ‘Rostam didn’t iron the shirt, but the pants, I know he did.’ (Toosarvandani 2009:21)

• We argue that in VVPE structure, the verb survives ellipsis by moving to the focus head, and the E

feature (Merchant, 2001) on F licenses the elision of its complement, vP.

• The trees in (25) illustrate the VVPE operation in Simple Predicates including the extraction of

either the DO or the IO. 8

(25) Simple Predicates

• a. VVPE with PP Extraction

FocP PP[+F] be doxtar-esh ‘to his daughter’ Foc′ vP DP <Ali> v′ VP DP gooshi-ro ‘the phone’ V′ <PP> V <dˆ ad> v <dˆ ad> Foc dˆ ad[E] ‘gave’

• b. VVPE with DP Extraction

FocP DP[+F] gooshi-ro ‘the phone’ Foc′ vP DP <Ali> v′ VP <DP> V′ PP be doxtaresh ‘to his daughter’ V <dˆ ad> v <dˆ ad> Foc dˆ ad[E] ‘gave’

• Adopting Shafiei’s (2016) analysis of Complex Predicates, we argue that the NV element can either

be pied-piped, to excape elision, or stranded to be deleted with the vP, as the structures in (26) show. (26) Complex Predicates

• a. NV Survives Ellipsis

FocP PP/DP Foc′ vP DP Ali v′ CVP DP mashin-esh-ro ‘his car’ CV′ PP be Sohrab ‘to Sohrab’ <CV> v <CV> Foc[E] CV NP neshun ‘show’ v dˆ ad ‘gave’

• b. NV is Elided

FocP PP/DP Foc′ vP DP Ali v′ CVP DP mashin-esh-ro ‘his car’ CV′ PP be Sohrab ‘to Sohrab’ CV NP neshun ‘show’ <v> v <v> Foc[E] v dˆ ad ‘gave’

• Our proposal is different from Toosarvandani’s analysis in the way we analyze complex predicates.

It also differs from Shafiei’s analysis regarding the lading site of the verb. 9

9. Conclusion

• Our proposal can account for structures in which the verb survives while the rest of the clause is

elided.

• The verb survives ellipsis by moving to the focus head in the TP level.
• Our analysis allows the arguments carrying contrastive focus to survive deletion by moving to [Spec,

FocP].

References Bailyn, John Frederick. 2014. Against a VP ellipsis account of Russian verb-stranding constructions. Studies in Japanese and Korean historical and theoretical linguistics and beyond 56:5–24. Goldberg, Lotus Madelyn. 2005. Verb-stranding VP ellipsis: A cross-linguistic study. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University. Gribanova, Vera. 2013. A new argument for verb-stranding verb phrase ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44:145–157. Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2001. On wh-questions in Persian. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 46:41–61. Karimi, Simin. 2005. A minimalist approach to scrambling: Evidence from Persian, volume 76. Walter de Gruyter. Megerdoomian, Karine. 2001. Event structure and complex predicates in Persian. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 46:97–126. Megerdoomian, Karine. 2012. The status of the nominal in Persian complex predicates. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30:179–216. Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford University Press on Demand. Rasekhi, Vahideh. 2014. Missing objects in Persian. Ms., Stony Brook University . Rasekhi, Vahideh. 2015. Missing objects in Persian. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Iranian Linguistics (ICIL5). Cahiers de Studia Iranica series . Schuyler, Tamara. 2002. Wh-movement out of the site of VP ellipsis. Master’s thesis, University of California Santa Cruz . Shafiei, Nazila. 2015. Ellipsis in Persian complex predicates: VVPE or something else. Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association . Shafiei, Nazila. 2016. Persian complex predicates: Evidence for verb movement from ellipsis and negation. Master’s thesis, University of Calgary . Toosarvandani, Maziar. 2009. Ellipsis in Farsi complex predicates. Syntax 12:60–92. Toosarvandani, Maziar. 2014. Persian. In The oxford handbook of ellipsis, eds. Jeroen van Craenenbroeck and Tanja Temmer-

• man. Oxford University Press.

10